Thursday 06 September 2018 8:47 am

The sugar tax is failing – let’s empower people to make their own choices instead

It’s been five months since the so-called “sugar tax” was introduced, charging manufacturers a levy according to the amount of sugar in their drinks products.

Ostensibly its aim was to combat obesity. But recent Nielsen data shows that the tax has had little impact on consumer behaviour.

Around two thirds (62 per cent) of consumers claim to buy soft drinks with the same frequency they did before the tax. And, in fact, the number of people who said they would continue to buy soft drinks grew post-tax, rising from 31 per cent in February to 44 per cent in June.

As a drinks manufacturer that prides itself in understanding consumer trends and purchasing habits, this new data comes as no surprise.

We produce a range of tonics, mixers and soft drinks, and back when the sugar tax was looming, we did our own survey about the things that consumers value. We found that between 40 and 50 per cent of people are willing to pay more for premium quality and natural flavours.

This insight alone shows why the sugar tax is failing. Making drinks more expensive won’t necessarily encourage people to buy less, as price just isn’t the only consideration. In fact, our research suggests that consumers have more confidence in natural flavours and ingredients. They don’t want fake flavour drinks, with many preferring sugar to artificial sweeteners.

So if the sugar tax won’t work to reduce consumption of sugary drinks, what will?

We suggest that a more effective alternative would be to introduce clear guidance that shows how many soft drinks people could treat themselves to each week.

The government is usually quite good at recommendations to help change diets. Think of five-a-day – it’s a simple message that’s quick and easy to understand in terms of how much fruit and veg to eat.

The premise of five-a-day could be adapted to create weekly allowance guidelines for soft drinks, shifting the emphasis of the consumption message from “should” to “could” by creating guidance for how many millilitres of soft drinks people might allow themselves.

The current government guidance for how much sugar we should eat is unhelpful. It recommends that free sugars should not make up more than five per cent of the energy we get from food and drink each day – an impractical measure in people’s busy day-to-day lives. It’s too time-consuming and difficult to decipher.

Millilitres are already displayed on soft drinks packaging. Creating guidelines using this measure of liquid, advising people how many millilitres of sugar they could healthily consume per week, would help them make more informed decisions, as they would be easily able to track their consumption against recommended allowances.

This approach also respects freedom of choice. We want to be able to make our own decisions using the best possible information, and trying to control our choices by raising prices will not resonate.

Tackling obesity is obviously important, but we need something more constructive than the blunt instrument of taxes. Clear and practical guidelines would support consumers, rather than punishing them with higher prices and trying to force them into change.

Instead, give them the power and the knowledge to make the best choices for themselves.